The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-06


ments, ceremonies, CONSIDERATIONS and
endowments may be polygamy and un-
lawful cohabitati0n in disguise; in fact
marriage is included in terms in the
charter without specification of the
kind of marriage. This is probably the
first time that any Legislature committed
the regulation OF marriage and tithing
to private corporation. 1t is safe to
assume that the right to regulate such
matters was never before attempted to
be contracted away to church or any
other body of men. Nor are we aware
that the right to regulate mans duty to
his Maker was ever included in a con-
tract. And finally this charter pro-
vides that such laws and customs shall
be founded in the revelations of the
Lord. This too, probably, is the first
time that legislature expressly limited
the rules and laws that a corpora ton
might make by the revelations of the
Lord, and made grant thereof TO any
per on, natural or artificial.
In THIS charter, the respondent insists
the church gained a vested right
upon its acceptance, and that Con-
gress has no aight to disapprove or
TO annul it. We know of no
precedent for holding thai a corpora
ton could obtain a vested right in.
charter like this. Had the Territorial
Legislature the power to grant vested
right to such charter? The case OF
! DartWorth College vs. Woodward G
Wheaton, 51S,) has been regarded as
settling the question that the cnarta OF
a private corporation constitutes 3
contract between State and corpora
ton. By this contract the corp ration
in consideration of presumed benefits
TO the public obtains vested right in
the charter, unless the Constitution or
a general law of the State or the char
ter itself, reserves the right to amend
or appeal. But we find no case hold
ing that a charter granted by the
Legislature of Territory gives such a
vested right.
Again, it will be found, we think, that
the powers granted by State in such
charters were limited to some particular
purpose; that they did not embrace
powers which the Legisla ture possessed
for the purpose Of government, 10 be
exercised by that body alone, or con o
ferred upon some municipal govern
ment for the same purpose. Such
powers are never granted by the
people to the Legislature 10 be
barsered and sold. A government based
upon the will Of the people must ever
keep such authority within reach OF the
peoples will. Legislatures are but the
agents of the people with authority to
make laws within constitutional limits
but without authority to give or to
contract away powers to make laws to
govern the people so that private
parties may gain vested rights IN them.
The charter IN question assumes 10
grant to the corporation powers TO
make regulations and laws with respect
to marriage, tlthing fellowship, etc. 1t
Confers in express terms upon the
church power and authority to originate
make and pass rules, regulations, Ordi.
nanceS and 10 establish customs and
''criterions" for the government con-
venience and control OF the church
! (Which means the whole Mormon pop
ulation of the Territory as well as the
right to acquire by purchase q other
wise real and personal propertyand TO
sell or dispose OF it at pleasure.
| Such are some of the powers con
ferred upon this church corporation
| by this remarkable act. To such
charter it is claimed the church has
acquired a vested right. If this proposi-
ton is sound the corporate body known
as the Church Of Jesus Christ OF Latter
day Saints mag endure under this
charter to distant ages. But we are of
the opinion that vested right could
not be acquired il such Il charter.
Further, Congress possesses the
power to enact laws for the government
of the Territoriz S. 1t may MAZE pro-
vision for Territorial governments and
extend the authority Of Territorial
! Legislatures to all rightful subjects of
! legislation. Such Teri torial govern
m-nts occupy toward Congress some
/ thing of the sane relation as NUM-
. Cipahtjes-such as city governments
/ I'LL toward the State L giSlatureS. A
! Sta legislature can repeal the charter
or 4 municipal government and
/ the ordinances passed under it;
| SO Congress can repeal the organic
| act OF Territory and all territorial ca
aCiments, in pursuance OF the Organic
Act. Congress is the soYereig power
to legislate for the Territories, and ali
charters from Territorial Legislatures
must be held to have been accepted
| with the knowledge that Congress
| possessed the authority to change or
repeal the law creating them. IA the
case Of National Ba-k vs.. YanktOn, 10I
| U. s., 100, the Court said: The Terri
! tories are but political subdivisions of
the outlying dominion of the United
States K and Congress may
| legislate for them as a State does for its
municipal organizations. In
the Organic Act of Dakota there was
not an express reservation Of power in
Congress to amend the acts of the Ter
ritorial Legislature, nor was it neces-
sary. Such a power IS an incident of
sovereignty, and continues until granted
away. Congress may not only abrogate
laws Of the Territorial Legislature, but
it may itself legislate directly for the
local government. 1t may make a void
act of the Territorial Legislature valid
and valid ect void. In other words,
it has full and complete legislative
authority over the people OF the Terri
tories and ali the departments of the
Territorial governments. 1t may do for
the Territories what the people, under
the Constitution of the United States,
may do for the States" This we con
celve to be the law upon the subject.
In the case under discussion the Ter
ritory was organized under the Organic
Act approved September 9th, 1850.
Among other provisions is the follow
ing: That the legislative power of